Menu

Donate

These writings help challenge the revisionist narrative and expose lies and antisemitism. They can and do make an impact. However, intensive independent research takes considerable time and is expensive. Please consider making a donation. They really do make a difference.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

So this is Yachad (UK) – part two: a borrowed ideology

For those who missed the first part of this research into Yachad UK, you can catch up with it here. In the second part of the series, I will look at the core politics and activities of Yachad, and analyse the reason for the frustration and hostility the group generates amongst mainstream British Zionists.

In many ways attacking Yachad is exactly what Yachad want you to do. They thrive every time they are accused of overstepping the mark. Such attacks allow them to play the role of the oppressed ‘peace-seekers’. In turn they paint all criticism as emerging from the camp of warmongering extremists. I can do little but fall into that trap. Despite my politics being ‘left of centre’, Yachad will simply suggest I am a closet Kahanist.

Yachad UK, core politics

Yachad have marketed themselves as a moderate left wing group. ‘Liberal Zionists’. Their core principles, two states built along the 67 lines (with border adjustments), and a negotiated denial of the Palestinian ‘right of return’, are the classic stance of the post Oslo Israeli Left position. Compromising, but Jew centric, and with a heart of Zionism. More Peres than Rabin.

So how can it be, that a movement that appears to push the politics of dovish elements in Israel’s Labour party, seems to raise such anger amidst British Jewry? More to the point how can this occur at the same time as Yachad are claiming that they have ‘majority support’ from mainstream British Jewry?

What Yachad want you to think is that this occurs because radical right wing Zionists control the British Zionist organisations. That Yachad are the only party of ‘peace’. To imply that UK Jewry was being so badly misrepresented, that only the creation of Yachad could redress the balance. So if someone like me, or perhaps a mainstream liberal Zionist group, begins to suggest the politics of Yachad are suspect, it creates a public crisis of identity that can only be averted by supporters of Yachad screaming ‘hard-liner’ in return.

As an example of this high pitched Yachad ‘screech’, in 2013 the Zionist Federation was forced to issue a statement correcting Yachad’s implication that the ZF do not support peace:

“It is important to note that despite claims by Yachad’s statement, the ZF strongly supports peace in the Middle East and the two state solution. To say that we do not is factually incorrect.”

Anyone that has engaged the central Zionist groups in the UK, knows they are, in the majority, left-leaning, accommodating, peace-seeking. Look at the make-up of the JLC, the Board, or some of the output of BICOM. For some, these groups are too left wing, too liberal, and they are often criticised by the more ‘right-wing’ elements within the community. The idea that the ZF’s of this world, wouldn’t fall over themselves in the rush to support a genuine peace deal is as absurd as it is an insult to the intelligence of UK Jewry. All this before we look at the incredible diversity of the grassroots movements.

So in truth this continual smearing by Yachad is nonsense. The two-state option, peace talks, withdrawing from territories, the creation of a Palestinian state, it has all been part and parcel of Israeli politics and global Zionist discourse since the mid 1990’s.

These days’ Israeli politics is split mainly on the lines of ‘who is responsible for the impasse’ and ‘what can be done about it’. Whatever they think of the current government policies, every Israeli Zionist party understands the complexities of the reality. Yet Yachad dance to the single monotonous beat of ‘it’s the occupation stupid’ that you can hear from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other great ‘friends’ of Israel (!!). Yachad have simply decided to behave as if peace is achievable and almost everything is the fault of Israel’s right wing and more specifically, the ‘settlements’.

This automatically distances Yachad from the more reasonable centrist groups, and certainly from ‘Zionist Union’. What this political positioning also does is entirely reject the premise that Yachad UK are speaking for the majority of British Jews. The invention of the ‘silent majority’ is similar to the call of the ‘Corbynistas’. Push a radical agenda whilst pretending to speak for the mainstream. As I pointed out last time, even Yachad’s own survey does not seem to support Yachad’s claims.

Yes, they cite the concerns of UK Jewry, but only those concerns that suit their own agenda. They ignore the inconsistencies, the causes and the complexities. The vast majority of those surveyed do not fit the platform of the Zionist left party ‘Meretz‘. Yachad are taking public ownership of a majority that does not support them. They become a Zionist version of ‘Momentum’.

Yachad UK, on the fringe

Even then, there is no need to reject the core argument. Yes, Yachad represent idealistic ‘student style’ politics. Affluent and entitled. Ignorant idealism may not be intellectually attractive, but it still falls into the realm of legitimate Zionist thought.

Yet Yachad were rejected in the application to join the Zionist Federation. So was that rejection wrong? Are Yachad on the fringe, or beyond it? Are this astroturf group a rebranded ‘Meretz UK’, or something more unstable? Let’s stop looking at how Yachad describe themselves, and start looking at what they are doing.

The recent ‘no-platforming’ of the Zionist movement ‘Im Tirtzu’ seems a good place to start. A public statement by Weisfeld was blatantly hypocritical, having had herself only recently slammed such tactics by other groups.

If this type of aggressive, ‘no-platforming’ of Zionism is familiar to you, this is because it is exactly the same logic that BDS uses to deny a platform to Zionism. Same arguments, same accusations. Yet in 2012, we can note that Yachad UK invited Ben White to their own blog pages. Offering him a platform (H/T UK Media Watch).

Now consider this, Ben White is at the very forefront of an absolute denial of the Zionist voice in the UK. He considers Israel a rogue nation that needs to be removed from the map. Ben White does not mention the name ‘Israel’, without adding the comments, ‘racist’. ‘apartheid’, ‘fascist’ or ‘settler colonialist’. He is an enemy of Israel. Many consider him an antisemite. Yachad UK offer Ben White a platform, but yet call for everyone to reject ‘Im Tirtzu’.

Yachad UK, over the edge

This hypocrisy, anti-Israel attitude and ethical ambiguity run throughout Yachad’s political positions. On boycott’s (H/T Richard Millet) Weisfeld ebbs and flows, contradicting herself as she goes. If, as Weisfeld states, “all forms of boycott are counterproductive”, then how could a ‘settlement only’ boycott possibly “change the nature of the debate”?

Yachad’s Director has already suggested she would feel personally uncomfortable buying produce from beyond the 1967 lines. Drawing no distinction between different types of settlements at all. But as Weisfeld toys with the idea of a partial boycott, she leaves Zionism behind. *NO* Zionist Israeli party supports a boycott. If we wish to place this Yachad contemplation on the political scale, then only communist, anti-Zionist ‘Hadash’ tick this box.

It is the failure to grasp the factual history surrounding the dispute and ignorance of the complexities of the conflict that continually expose Yachad UK, and in particular its central public figure, Hannah Weisfeld. It is almost as if Yachad is operating on a borrowed ideology (from Meretz) that isn’t fully understood by those using it. This creates a dangerous cocktail that frequently sees Yachad tip over the edge of Zionism and into the void beyond.

“When Yachad, the British Jewish pro-Israel pro-peace movement began taking tours to Hebron, we were criticized for paying too much attention to the city because it gives the “wrong impression” about the impact of Israeli presence in the West Bank, which is perceived to be less extreme elsewhere. But the system of rule in Hebron is just a condensed version of the system of rule over the entire West Bank”

Which is an absurd statement. Not only is Hebron a ‘one-off’, the implication in the use of the word ‘perceived’ is that Hebron’s condition is actually a condensed version of ‘the norm’. As someone who has travelled extensively and *independently* throughout the 67 lands, I can say categorically, that Ms. Weisfeld is talking absolute poppycock.

Left wing activists *think* they are informed, and yes, they have digested a large amount of information, but it is almost all taken from the ‘science of the occupation’. Names, details, events that are all related to the specifics of their own cause. In discussion, this can play out as appearing ‘knowledgeable’, but in truth it is like memorising the text of a CS Lewis book. Talking for an hour about Susiya or the Beduin in the Negev is little more than an irrelevant party trick. At times, quoting B’tselem is simply repeating the output of a random number generator.

Hannah’s problem, is that like most activists she is caught in this ideological straightjacket. I doubt very much that Ms. Weisfeld has ever let go of the hand that leads her and walked down the unchartered path of ‘West Bank’ travel. Every visit she has made would have been directed. All Yachad can do is feed others with the same distortion that its own leaders have been fed. A cyclical movement of anti-Israel propaganda. Trapped inside a restrictive bubble that is determined to create a balloon of a particular shape.

Shaking the roots of UK Zionists

Hebron is a major part of the Yachad UK tours, but it is not the only red flag. There are many indications that Yachad is not being directed by anybody with a full grasp of the fundamental issues. Yachad are one sided. All hate, no moderation. Daphne Anson (citing a Jonathan Hoffman speech) discusses an account from someone who went on a Yachad trip:

“Our leader subjected us to a litany of accusations against Israel. I have studied the conflict and most of his accusations were new to me and did not ring true. Some of his statements I knew to be false.”

But rather than highlight the bias and damaging aspects of the tour through the eyes of someone who criticises them, I think it more useful to work with comments from one of those who praise the tours. This from a Yachad blog post in 2014:

“I’m anti-occupation and anti-settlement. I can’t find and justification for the theft someone’s land and justifying it by saying that it’s said in the Torah. How would you like to wake up in the morning and find that someone had parked a caravan in your back garden and they refused to leave citing a different religious book that you don’t follow or agree with? I could imagine that if they said, “Well ok, I’ll give you back 97% of your garden but I’m still holding on to the other 3%”, you wouldn’t find that acceptable. And don’t try and say that it’s their fault for not believing in the Torah, the argument of us having the right to say to someone else that our religion is truer that theirs is ridiculous and to apply the laws of it to them is even more so. How to we have the right to say that we’re more right than anyone else? How do we have the right to say that someone else is wrong?”

Now whether Yachad wish to admit it or not, this activist is on the brink of anti-Zionism. That argument is one I hear at every BDS meeting I attend, and *has no borders*. The precise logic works for pre-1967 Israel, and although the writer hasn’t yet internalised the full scope of his argument yet, his roots of Zionism have been sufficiently shaken as to be non-existent. Emotionally he may still have ties to Israel, but intellectually he has already let go. He is one persuasive conversation away from switching sides.

I cannot know what position he is in now, whether perhaps he pulled himself back from the brink. What he needed was factual discussion, real history. Criticism – fine, but in context and with both sides of a very difficult conversation. What he got, was pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist propaganda that blew him away. Those words above are his – not mine. He is evidence that Yachad should not currently receive the support of British Jews. So oblivious are they to the damage they do, they advertise this on their own website with pride.

Social media anti-Zionist promotion

But although taking young British Jews on tour and filling them with the latest and greatest from the anti-Israel propaganda camp is frightening, it is some of Yachad’s social media activity that highlights just how blind this group are to the division between Zionism and anti-Zionism. I admit I had originally turned to their social media activity to push home the point that Yachad are an astroturf group with limited support. A quick glance at their Twitter account and Facebook page highlights that almost nobody is listening. But what actually caught my eye was the activity itself. These are just some of the writers promoted by Yachad on their twitter feed:

Now this small selection all appeared over a matter of a few weeks. And I let some, such as Orly Noy pass without comment. At perhaps 2 tweets a day, it also cannot be argued that Yachad UK are ‘diversifying’ to find content. These are effectively their “read of the day” posts. All of these link the follower back to 972 Mag. Most of the writers who appear on 972 are anti-Zionists. Almost all push the ‘one democratic state’ idea. Almost all those above, support elements of BDS: Shaeffer claims it is “a just outcome that guarantees basic rights for everyone”, Greenstein argues against Chomsky’s BDS aversion, Bahour actively promotes the boycott and Sheizaf says BDS should “not be opposed”

The party of choice for many of these 972 writers is ‘Hadash’, that currently sits within the ‘Joint List‘. This isn’t mainstream Zionism, nor reflective of a Zionist desire for peace at all, Yachad UK is openly promoting people who actively pursue the end of Israel and Zionism. Zonszein recently wrote a piece about leaving Israel. The usual imaginary ‘radical left’ game of pretending the end-game is here and everyone is leaving. ‘Reverse Zionism’ I suppose. Leaving Israel is the same course of action ‘Boycott from Within’ founder Ronnie Barkan took.

In addition, Yachad post almost nothing in support of Israel. Nor do they seem to align themselves with moderate left wing Zionists. On the day of the horrific attack at Kehilat Bnei Torah synagogue, Yachad UK chose to post a piece by Noam Sheizaf attacking Netanyahu, suggesting the attack is part of the ‘implementation phase’ of Israel’s right wing. Needless to say, no Zionist party in Israel would have dared to have promoted such poison, as the blood from that terror attack still ran across the synagogue floor.

I met Sheizaf at Exeter University, where he attended Illan Pappe’s ‘Conference on Settler Colonialism in Palestine‘. If you are not sure who the anti-Zionist, pro-BDS, revisionist, Illan Pappe is, you can always read more about him on 972 Mag. Ben White has been published there too. Many of these people are friends. These people all self-reference themselves as the ‘radical left’. This is the politics that Yachad UK are publicly supporting and disseminating. But if Yachad UK claim to be ‘pro-Israel, pro-peace’ and Zionist, how are they making so many blatant errors of judgement?

A two state what?

The central problem remains the illusionary stance of their oft-stated goals. Yachad regurgitate the ‘Oslo’ mantra as if it still has validity. This from the 2015 annual report:

“Letting our election candidates in the UK know that supporters of Israel want candidates as their MPs who will actively promote the two-state solution”

( At this point it may be useful to recollect that at the outset, Weisfeld stated that: “there would be clear differences from J Street and unlike the American enterprise, Yachad would not be a political lobbying organisation”. Given how much political lobbying Yachad undertake, it seems she ‘forgot’.)

But if Yachad actually paid attention to the thoughts of the ‘ex-general’s’ they continually cite, ‘Oslo’ is at best in a vegetative state. For several reasons (many not within Israel’s control), the establishment of a ‘Palestinian state’ is not feasible for the foreseeable future. And whether you believe that in the end, a two state solution may or may not be preferable, claiming to be a party of peace whilst in the same sentence drawing the diagram of what peace *has to* look like, can become ideological quicksand. What happens if the political landscape around you begins to change? This is what has happened to Yachad. Weisfeld belongs in Beilin’s Labour of 1998 or Sarid’s Meretz of 1995, but neither of these parties exist today.

Whilst the moderate left in Israel began to seek alternative, unilateral options to maintain the ‘democratic Jewish majority’, Weisfeld and ‘non lobbying’ Yachad, petition the UK government to pressure Israel to force Oslo down their throats. So as Yachad UK desperately search for Zionist material that agrees with their outdated political position, they find themselves scrambling further and further left. In the end, Yachad need the ‘anti-Zionists’, the ‘radical left’, because nobody on the Zionist spectrum is speaking the same language. Yachad’s posts – radical left, Yachad’s tours – radical left, Yachad’s statements – Narnia-esque

“To be recognised as a state will require the Palestinian leadership to take on the obligations of behaving like a state.”

Which displays an incredible level of naivety. Has Weisfeld not been paying attention at all for the last two decades? Nobody on this side of sanity believes that anymore.

An argument does not have to be factually based, it can alternatively be grounded in pseudo-science / academic theory. But you cannot sensibly support something that has no academic cover, nor any grounding in fact, because it becomes a dangerous chimera. This is the ‘space’ Yachad UK currently occupies.

Because of this it is on the questions of ‘limits’ and matters of ‘self-defence’ that Yachad seem to become highly exposed. During 2014, David Hirsch commented that Yachad are “strong on peace but quiet on Jewish self-defence”. This highlights that disquiet with the groups ‘foundation’, is also visible within camps that traditionally align with Oslo’s aims. It is foolish to write off criticism of Yachad as being a protection of right wing values.

They bring over Zionists such as Yehuda Bauer, without actually heeding their words. I have seen him twice now (thank you Yachad!). On both occasions, Bauer declared that BDS is antisemitic and anti-Zionism is antisemitism. He also stated that modern antisemitism is not caused by the conflict over the 1967 lands. All this from a man with Mapam in his roots. Despite Bauer’s natural political opposition to the ‘occupation’, the authors at 972 magazine would be at odds with almost every premise that Bauer pushed. These two distinct groups are not political bedfellows, but there seems an apparent difficulty within Yachad to draw distinctions. This is why Yachad’s message is an absolute mess.

As is usually the case with the credible people Yachad hide behind, within the detailed content of their speeches, you will find everything necessary to discredit Yachad’s own position. During yesterday’s discussion, Bauer was asked about ‘self-haters’. He discussed the existence in Israel of Jews who push the enemy line. People for example, who are anti-Zionists (Bauer claims they are antisemites), who push BDS (Bauer claim the boycott is antisemitic) and Bauer suggests these people may have ‘psychological’ issues. Yet these are some of the people Yachad are actively promoting and they include some of those Yachad UK want to take our children to meet on their tours. Don’t Yachad UK even listen to the speakers at their own events?

Yachad gain credibility through these public exercises, having the funds to invite excellent Zionist speakers that push liberal Zionism. Thus displaying the acceptable Zionist face of the peace camp. It gains them access into the synagogue, into the community. Yet there are two distinct Yachad faces. The reasonable face Yachad presents to the doubting crowd, and the anti-Zionist, pro boycott mob they want our children to meet.

If you were to question them, Yachad activists would deny such a dissonance exists. But you cannot continually post writings of anti-Zionists, of BDS supporters, of those who seek to end Zionism, and still claim to be staunchly Zionist. At a certain point your desire to hold on to the Zionist label becomes merely a marketing tool.

Yachad UK, menace without intention

This piece should be read in the spirit in which it was written. This is not an attack on the ‘peace camp’. It is not an attack on those who seek to build bridges, nor those who would prefer a two state solution above all other alternatives.

The problem is one of understanding, context and direction. Left in the wilderness by the shifting sands of a complex situation Yachad do not possess the internal integrity to maintain a clear path. In shorthand, it seems the people who founded Yachad simply did not know enough to have created their own movement. This is why it was based on a borrowed ideology. Under normal circumstances, Yachad would never have left the launchpad because the mainstream Zionist organisations already possessed ‘pro-Oslo’ movements.

Astroturf groups however, can forge a direction even when the public do not ideologically respond, because financially they remain viable without many followers. With enough funding to push a particular vision, Yachad aligned themselves with groups that support the boycott like Machsom Watch, or Ir Amim, and publicly push our youth towards the ideology of 972 magazine. You cannot keep swimming in the waters of those who promote or assist in a boycott and insist you are not, at best, assisting anti-Zionism.

It is radical thought, dressing itself up as mainstream left wing Zionism and then resurfacing inside our Synagogues and universities to open a discussion with Zionist youth. Don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with a movement which promotes Oslo, even if I think it a ‘mythical zeitgeist’. However, I do take issue with a movement that does not seem able to distinguish between the ‘BDS is antisemitic’ comments of Prof. Bauer and the ‘antisemitic BDS’ they seem to want to expose our children to. In my opinion, Yachad are simply not safe.

Yachad seem to be fronted by a handful of entitled, affluent British Jews, with a ‘little knowledge’, who have taken it upon themselves to ‘inform’ Israel that the majority of British Jews agree with Yachad. Having also immersed themselves in the ‘science of the occupation’, they wish to teach this science to Zionist youth. They do so whilst providing a programme that simply does not present a balanced or accurate view of the landscape.

Now it is likely that these people, living in the comfort of North London, are acting with a sincere desire to help achieve an imaginary Israel of which they can be proud. Needless to say however it is not their children sitting in the line of fire. One wonders whether they would have tweeted about the attack on the synagogue in 2014 in quite the same way if there was a personal attatchment to the victims.

“For it is the people of Israel who suffer the direct consequences of the forces ranged against them and it is their children who are in the front line of its defence.”

It is worth bearing this in mind when dealing with a group which wants your help to actively petition the UK government or wish to promote the ideology of anti-Israel boycotts to Zionist Jewish youth. A group that clearly does not fully grasp the complexities (OR THE DANGERS) of a Jewish nation trying to find a path to peace in the turbulent and hostile Middle East.

The third and final piece in this series, on the Yachad tours, is being researched. Due to those that contacted me over the research, and a list of people I now have to interview, this will take time. You can get a notification when the third piece is released by subscribing to the blog using the link on the page.

Follow, like, donate

Follow the FB page for this blog: and follow me on Twitter. Please if you can, also consider making a donation. Research is expensive and time consuming. Simply producing just one of these piece does take days, sometimes weeks, and whilst I do what I can, there are serious constraints that impact on what is possible. Every small amount helps.

9 thoughts on “So this is Yachad (UK) – part two: a borrowed ideology”

Thanks again, David Collier, for another excellent analysis of the confused but underlyingly anti-zionist politics of Yachad. I say anti-zionist, which you do not, because its core purpose appears to be to undermine the legitimacy of (as their marxist companions would say) actually-existing Israel and any of its supporting zionist political parties. The only movement they appear to be aligned with is Peace Now, which is not a political party and has virtually zero support in Israel. Most importantly, they have directly allied with and have raised funds for a campaign against the Israeli government and justice system for the territories run by the former leader of Peace Now, currently a senior candidate of Meretz. In that sense, comparing Yachad with Momentum is correct, though of course Momentum has hundreds of thousands of followers, whilst Yachad barely registers a thousand. And even Meretz’s most famous ideologue, Gideon Baskin, currently does not appear to believe that peace is possible via negotiations with Fatah and Hamas (especially the latter).

How is the provision of defence counsel “a campaign against the Israeli government and the justice system for the territories”? The Israeli government itself explicitly provides that accused are entitled to a defence counsel.

I have written a letter to the Jewish News, published in last week’s edition, about the very issue of Yachad and the ‘occupation’. In a nutshell, Yachad is complaining about the methods deployed by Israel in ‘controlling’ the Palestinians of the West Bank. Let us imagine for a moment that Israel pulls out of the West Bank, as they did in Gaza in 2005. We know what happened to Gaza. It became a hell-hole, run by fanatics and an arms depot.

The West Bank will go the same way, but worse because the Golan Heights will be an open door to Daesh, Hezbollah and other factions. The Palestinians will not be able to protect themselves and may well be taken over. Who will they blame? Israel of course. Yachad seems blissfully unaware of this.

The Yachad/JLC mouthpiece troll Gabriel Webber is up again. Trolls should be ignored and not fed. For the sake of anyone who takes seriously his rerun of disingenuous questions about what’s wrong with Yachad raising money to pay for a Palestinian anti Israel law fare activist lawyer to defend Palestinian minors of such crimes as attempting to knife Israeli civilians I am reposting the comment I posted on David’s Yachad part 1 post, about the nature of the Peace Now front campaign run by Yachad to raise money for this purpose, in which Webber was a tout for funding sponsorship. It includes both the text from Yachad’s Peace Now/Meretz partners which unmasks the true nature of this project, and links to and quotes at length from the Israeli government’s detailed and fully referenced response to the accusations that Palestinian minors arrested by the IDF and Israeli police are not given legal representation. That of course is supposed to be provided by the Palestinian Authority who refuse to shell out for it, preferring to give money to convicted terrorists serving in Israeli prisons. This project shows up Yachad and trolls like Webber for what they are:

Gabriel Webber who was a proud member and a tout for personal sponsorship of the YachadUK youth team which raised money from well meaning but uninformed members of the UK Jewish community to pay for a Palestinian “human rights” lawyer to represent Palestinian minors accused of terrorism and attacks on IDF troops and civilians.

Yachad UK’s cute sounding “Kids in Court” campaign which he is a key part of is described by them as a collaboration with the Tel Aviv law firm Gaby Lasky Law, which self describes as a human rights pioneer.

This is how they describe their funding raising project for legal support to “kids” aged 18 and younger accused of terrorism and hostilities against IDF forces and Jewish Israeli civilians:

“All the money raised will be used for the cause of improving the situation for Palestinian children who experience the military court system. We are collaborating with the Israeli Law firm Gaby Lasky Law and partners in this campaign. We hope to raise £26,000, enough money to pay the salary and expenses of a lawyer for one year. Their job will be to represent Palestinian children throughout the judicial process and create reporting to document the reality on the ground. The reporting will then be used to advocate around the issue in order to create long-term, sustainable change to the situation. We will also be using a small amount of funding to contribute towards the costs of bringing an Israeli lawyer from Lasky Law to the United Kingdom for three days to speak at educational events about this issue.

Tell me more about the lawyer’s work…

The lawyer’s job will be to escort, advise and represent Palestinian minors throughout the legal proceedings. This includes emergency legal support at the police station, representing them during the initial interrogation and visiting minors prior to any second or third interrogation. The lawyer will also visit the minors on a weekly basis during the investigation for as long as they are in custody and the trial has not finished.

The lawyer will also be the point of contact between the minors, their family and their village. This involves collecting evidence including affidavits, videos and photos during the arrest and trial period, and arranging bail options and guarantors for the bail hearing. If the case ultimately goes to trial, the lawyer will also represent the defendant in court.

It is estimated that the lawyer will be able to work with roughly 50 minors. 25-35 of these will be represented throughout the judicial process and a further 15 will have their experiences documented to create the aforementioned reporting.”

Note that even this bit of highly decontextualised and romanticised reporting openly states that a core aim is to provide further material which can be edited and presented to uninformed UK Jews in support of further bankrolling the defence of young Palestinian fighters and terrorists against Israel and Israelis.

Kids in Court proudly proclaims their partnership with Gaby Lasky Law and links to an enthusiastic and adoring article in the virulently Israel-demonising online +972 magazine which gives away this “human rights lawyer’s” political affiliations and agenda, which YachadUK endorses by choosing to collaborate with her:

“For Attorney Gaby Lasky, however, Ofer is where much of her day-to-day work takes place. Lasky — a human rights attorney who previously served as the General Director of Peace Now, a current Tel Aviv council member and number seven on the left-wing Meretz party’s list for the upcoming elections — has spent much of the last decade defending Palestinian who lead the popular struggle against the occupation and the separation barrier in the West Bank, as well as the Israeli Jews who join them.”

For Attorney Gaby Lasky, however, Ofer is where much of her day-to-day work takes place. Lasky — a human rights attorney who previously served as the General Director of Peace Now, a current Tel Aviv council member and number seven on the left-wing Meretz party’s list for the upcoming elections — has spent much of the last decade defending Palestinian who lead the popular struggle against the occupation and the separation barrier in the West Bank, as well as the Israeli Jews who join them.

So this project is really a Peace Now front. And Gaby Lasky is a leading political activist of Meretz, fighting for Palestinians “who lead the popular struggle”. Nice euphemistic way of describing murders and knife attacks, often carried out by just those Palestinian minors who Gabriel Webber and his fellow Yachad “popular struggle” enablers/useful idiots try to raise money to get legal support for.

What YachadUK and its foot soldiers like Webber have absolutely nothing to say, do or fundraise for in the context of Palestinian minors incited and supported to knife and attack Israeli forces and civilians is the institutionalised Palestinian child abuse integral to the systematic indoctrination of Palestinian children and youth into antisemitic hatred and being used as military puppets, tools and sacrificial victims, sent by Fatah and its media operation to kill and maim in the name of “popular struggle”. The involvement of minors as helpers and fighters in military conflicts is of course a war crime which Fatah as well as Hamas defiantly proclaims its support for, including running summer training camps in this particular form of institutionalised child abuse.

What of course we have yet to hear from Yachad UK about is exactly which Palestinian “kids” they used the £30,000+ they raised from UK donors to organise this entirely disinterested firm of Peace Now/Meretz lawyers to defend.

How old were the “kids” when arrested? How many are boys/girls? How many have previous convictions and for what? What exactly were the offences they were arrested for?

None of this information is provided by the Yachad UK and “Kids In Court” web site.

This is in fact a political laundering organisation. By which I mean an analogy with money laundering.

Only a minuscule number of UK Jews would fall for a campaign openly organised by Peace Now and Meretz, the Israeli equivalent of the Respect party, to provide money to defend Palestinian minors involved in military and quasi military physical attacks, including stabbings and attempted murders of Israeli Jews and IDF forces.

But of course when you get a wide eyed bunch of mainly Reform and Liberal Youth movement mazkirim plus the odd raised Orthodox, now siding with Israel’s enemies, with a nice cute sounding project like “Kids in Court”, it’ll come across as an altogether more noble project. And that’ll mean that well meaning parents will remain ignorant that that’s what their youth movements and Israel tours are tied in with.

So I leave it to you to decide whether Gabriel Webber is just a fool, a useful idiot or a self promoting liar in the service of the fight to delegitimise the elected government of Israel and Israel as a project.

I note that you have responded to Judy rather than to David’s analysis. Can this be taken to mean that you agree with the points raised by David? In my view, David has outlined an enormous and critical disparity between core principles and the actions of Yachad. Do you have any comments on the main thrust of the article? You might seek push this back to Yachad (and I note with great interest the deafening silence from Yachad) but I am interested in your personal view as well.

No, I don’t agree with David’s points. But since he doesn’t engage in debate and instead resorts to proof by assertion and ageist putdowns (‘You have a childish style of arguing’ is not a response) I see no value in challenging his un-nuanced hypocrisy at the moment, when I know that all I will get back is prevarication.

Oh Gabriel. You are slipping into irrelevance. When you first came to this blog (and you have responded here more than anyone else), you would at least engage the points. Now you just deflect. The above is a perfect example. You cannot seriously make the statements you just have, when there is a heavily researched 4000 word argument above, and you are choosing personal attacks as a response.